User talk:Woodensuperman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome, Rob! :)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Woodensuperman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

PS: If you need anything at all, please leave a message on my talk page. :) Srose (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Nordic cinema task force

Hi. You may be interested in joining the new WP:Films task force which includes Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic and Danish film!! The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the word "duology"

Please see and respond at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Regarding_the_word_.22duology.22. Dcoetzee 05:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Requested_moves/current

A multi-move was listed with the parameters on separate lines instead of one long line. This causes a glitch which I have not found a way to prevent yet. In the meantime, I fixed the source of the glitch. —harej (talk) (cool!) 14:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Heptalogy

Hello Robsinden, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Heptalogy has been removed. It was removed by JHunterJ with the following edit summary '(de-prod; AfDed twice already)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with JHunterJ before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Categories

Bravo for the creation of categories for literature series. Don't know why I didn't think of that myself. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I used to have all the film series on my watchlist...

...but 86.xx.xxx.xxx kept adding so much stuff that I took them off. I have told them before that there is no third batman film, there is no third predators film, that the 1978, 1990 and 2007 bodysnatchers films are not linked, but they don't listen. I am going through the series and reverting, so that I know where to revert back to should they start their bullshit again. For instance, they moved Saw from 6 to 7 films even though 6 hasn't been released. On the trilogy page they keep adding Inside Deep Throat as a sequel to Deep Throat when it is a documentary about the first film. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Eva edit

Re these 2 edits: please explain. Rebuild seems to meet the definition of film tetralogy perfectly, and the word is in wide use to describe these 4 films. Until you've done so, I'm reverting your edits. --Gwern (contribs) 14:13 18 September 2009 (GMT)

List of Rugrats episodes

Redmy is a new editor who has been at several articles, combining and reorganising episodes in seasons that contradict available sources. I suspect that most of the problems that you're seeing with List of Rugrats episodesmay be as a result of his recent edits,[1] but I don't know enough about the series to know whether this is the case, but based on his edits to other articles I suspect it is. You might care to look at the pre-Redmy version,[2] and if that's OK, revert to it. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop deleting entries in the list

When are you going to stop deleting entries in the list of MoC releases? The print catalogue has been available as a PDF file in the MoC site since long ago.

My response

AfD nomination of Walt Disney Platinum Editions

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Walt Disney Platinum Editions. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Disney Platinum Editions. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

LT/MM filmographies

Your edits have been reverted - again. For one thing, your summaries did not make any sense. Second, the problem happens on your computer only. Please refrain from reverting again. 76.189.169.244 (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

My response

Relevant talk page

New Moon (2009 film) and Eclipse (2010 film)

Both these two articles were recently submitted for a name change. I did agree with this name change in February, however, now I am a strong opposing factor in why the name should ramian New Moon and Eclipse with the signifigant other name in the first line of the articles.

WP:NCCN and WP:PRECISION both state the title should be "terms most commonly used", "A good article title is brief and to the point", "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles", "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl."Source.

Also see WP:PRECISION. I quote from there: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to name an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington rock band)" over Nirvana (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred."

However, I personally do not think we have had enough input and would like input from people who might not like these movies, or just edit them to help wikipedia out. The pages are: Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#Requested move and Talk:Eclipse (2010 film)#Requested move. Any help/input would greatly be apriciated. I am not stressing weather you should oppose/support either of these.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Hi Rob (It's about the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography table scrolling issue)

Rob,

I agree that the fixed-width tables problem is inconvenient. I wanted to see what your change were to the page to see what I think about it, because you wanted to have some feedback. I didn't understand where to find the changes that you had made. Here's your original quote on the discussion page so that you know what I'm talking about:

"I see someone has added additional tables to the 30s page in an attempt to reduce table width. I don't think that that these duplicate tables are the way to go, with long, mostly empty rows, but how about the footnotes system? I've updated the first three entries this way - what does anyone think?"

Could you wikilink me to your changes so I know which of those three "entries" you were talking about? Sorry, I should know what you're talking about, but my common sense is running a little low this week. (Maybe I can't find them because they've been reverted, or...I don't know...)

Anyway, thanks. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on the :talk page. Does this help you? Rob Sinden (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this comment

Please note that I have found analysis on this subject in scholarly books and have added and cited some of this information in the article. My source searching has turned up quite a bit more beyond what I added and I therefore politely request that you reconsider. Thank you for your time and consideration! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5